COURT of APPEALS, DIVISION I NO. 76114-5 Supreme Court of the State of Washington the CITY of SEA TILE, a Municipal Corporation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
FILED Court of Appeals Division I State of Washington 411612018 2:47 PM COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION I NO. 76114-5 Supreme Court of the State of Washington 95745-2 THE CITY OF SEATILE, a municipal corporation, Petitioner/Appellee, v. HUGH K. SISLEY and MARTHA E. SISLEY, husband and wife, et al., Respondents/Appellants. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF HUGH AND MARTHA SISLEY P. Arley Harrel, WSBA #05170 Patrick E. Byrnes, WSBA #45467 Attorneys for the Sisleys Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2380 Ph: (206) 628-6600 Fx: (206) 628-6611 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 6411217.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. IDENTITY OF PETITIONER ......................................................... 1 II. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ................................................ 1 III. ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............................................. 3 IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................... .3 A. The City's Code Enforcement Efforts ................................. 3 B. City Attorney Holmes's Press Conference ......................... .4 C. The Sisley "Pocket Park" ..................................................... 5 D. Proceedings Below............................................................... 7 1. The City Persuades the Trial Court to Sharply Limit Discovery ................................................................. 8 2. The City Objects More Than 20 Times, Over the Course of the Sisleys' Limited Presentation of Evidence at the Public Use and Necessity Hearing, and then Mocks Their Position As "Unsupported Conspiracy Theory" ................................................. 9 E. The Public Records Act Requests ...................................... 11 V. ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 13 A. Discovery in Civil Cases is of Constitutional Importance. 13 B. The Condemnation Proceeding Also Presents an Issue of Substantial Public Interest. ................................................. 17 VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 20 -1- 6411217.2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) STATE CASES In re Adoption ofT.A. W., 387 P.3d 636 (2016) ............................................................................. 18 John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772,819 P.2d 370 (1991) .................................................. 13 Lowy v. PeaceHealth, 174 Wn.2d 769, 280 P.3d 1078 (2012) ............................................... .13 Manufactured Hous. Cmtys. v. State, 142 Wn.2d 347, 13 P.3d 183 (2000) .................................................... 20 Metro. Park Dist. ofTacoma v. State, Dep't ofNat. Res., 85 Wn.2d 821, 539 P.2d 854 (1975) ................................................... .17 Port ofEverett v. Everett Improvement Co., 124 Wash. 486,214 P. 1064 (1923) .................................................... .15 Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wn.2d 243,884 P.2d 592 (1994) .................................................. 17 Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Med Ctr., P.S., 166 Wn.2d 974,216 P.3d 374 (2009) .................................................. 13 Robles v. Dep't ofLabor & Indus., 48 Wn. App. 490, 739 P.2d 727 (1987) ............................................... 16 Sessom v. Mentor, 155 Wn. App. 191 (2010) .................................................................... 18 State ex rel. Lange v. Superior Court, 61 Wn.2d 153,377 P.2d 425 (1963) .................................................... 15 State ex rel. Puget Sound Navigation Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 33 Wn.2d 448,206 P.2d 456 (1949) ................................................... .16 -ii- 6411217.2 State v. Watson, 155 Wn.2d 574, 122 P.3d 903 (2005) ................................................. .18 FEDERAL CASES Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) ............................................................................. 15 STATE STATUTES Ordinance 124800 .................................................................................. 8, 14 Ordinance 124880 .............................................................................. 8, 9, 14 RCW 13.34.040 ......................................................................................... 18 RCW 42.56.030 ......................................................................................... 17 RULES RAP 13.4(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 12 RAP 13.4(b)(4) .................................................................................... 12, 18 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Wash. Const. Art. 1, § 16 ..................................................................... 17, 20 OTHER AUTHORITIES Drainage and Sewer, http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/DrainageSewer/ (last visited March 1, 2017) ................................................................. 19 Letter to W.T. Barry, Aug. 4, 1822, 9 The Writings of James Madison 103 (Gaillard Hunt, ed. 1910) .................................... 17 Seattle OPCD - Parks and Open Space Element, https://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/docu ments/web .. ./p2450578.pdf (last visited March 1, 2017) .................... 19 -111- 6411217.2 I. IDENTITY OF PETITIONER Hugh and Martha Sisley ask this Court to accept review of the decision designated in Part II. II. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION The Sisleys respectfully submit that the Court of Appeals erred by upholding the trial court's orders restricting the Sisleys' access to information, documents, and witnesses relevant to the condemnation of their property. The Sisleys further submit that the Court of Appeals erred in denying their motion for reconsideration. In short, the Sisleys were denied materials in discovery that showed that the City of Seattle's act of condemning their property was arbitrary and capricious. Further, as the Sisleys learned through the City's responses to their Public Records Act requests seeking documents relating to the condemnation, which responses the City did not provide (in large part) until after briefing at the Court of Appeals level in this matter was closed, the City was sitting on thousands of pages of documents relating to the condemnation which cast the matter in a very different light than the City portrayed it in its presentation to the lower courts. Indeed, while the City described its selection of the Sisley property as the result of a "perfect" process at the hearing before the trial court and denounced the Sisleys' contention that the City's action was arbitrary and -1- 6411217.2 capricious as a conspiracy theory, RP 53-54, emails from City employees produced by the City just days after briefing before the Court of Appeals closed described the process very differently. In fact, the supervisor for City employee Chip Nevins, the only witness the City offered to be deposed and called at the PUN hearing, characterized the condemnation as "an f' ed up move by Law" that resulted "from lack of leadership under [the] previous administration." Other City employees acknowledged that the Sisley property was just blocks away from two other parks and opined that the Roosevelt neighborhood was not a "high need area." 1 Thus, contrary to what the City told the lower courts, the selection of the Sisley property was far from perfect. The Sisleys contend that the City's conduct before the lower courts-that is, representing that the park selection process was "perfect" while sitting on internal emails that criticized and questioned the process and supported the Sisleys' arguments-may have been fraudulent and could be a basis for a motion to set aside the trial court's decree of public use and necessity under CR 60. The City's withholding of highly relevant documents allowed it to spin the story it wanted to the lower courts, which story turned out to be 1 A true and correct copy of several emails produced by the City regarding the condemnation process in response to Public Records Act requests filed by the Sisleys is attached hereto as Appendix 2. -2- 6411217.2 utterly contradicted by the City's own documents. All of this is an example of why robust discovery is necessary in condemnation actions. A copy of the Court of Appeals' unpublished opinion dated February 12, 2018 and its March 16, 2018 order denying the Sisleys' motion for reconsideration are attached to this petition as Appendix 1. III. ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court's orders denying the Sisleys access to information, documents, and witnesses relevant to the condemnation of their property? IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. The City's Code Enforcement Efforts Martha (84) and Hugh Sisley (91) have been a popular target of elected officials in the City of Seattle. Longtime residents of the Roosevelt neighborhood, the Sisleys own several properties in the area, which they had made available as affordable housing for tenants in a neighborhood rapidly becoming devoid of affordable housing. CP 166; RP 10:10-11:18. Unfortunately, this is not a space devoid of detractors and critics. In 2008, the City received a complaint from a man who got into a dispute with the Sisleys' tenant. The City issued a notice of violation, and fined the Sisleys at a rate of $500 per day. CP 184-86. On direct orders from -3- 6411217.2 the City Attorney's Office, City staff then sat back and "let the penalties continue to rack up on this one." CP 170. And